Human Error in Aviation Operations

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses human error in aviation operations. No completely adequate understanding of human error exists, but significant progress is being made to achieve that understanding. Even the simple framework for discussing error in a systematic fashion should help the reader to better understand the basis for error in the operation of a complex system such as the national airspace system. Working on any one component of the system, whether it is the pilots, the machinery, or any of the other human actors, is bound to fail at some level. All these components are interdependent, and changes in any one eventually are reflected in the others. For just this reason, attempts to increase levels of aviation safety solely through the use of automation, as is sometimes suggested, cannot succeed. On the other hand, it is becoming clear that the technology that has been developed can and must play an increasingly significant role in helping to deal with the problem of human error. Progress, too, is being made in the understanding of how to aid humans to make better decisions, both through training and through machine facilitation or management of the decision process. Although the effective enhancement of the decision-making process of the pilot will no doubt be a slow process, there clearly exists substantial room—and hope—for improvement.

[1]  J Reason Recurrent errors in process environments: some implications for the design of intelligent support systems , 1986 .

[2]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Design rules based on analyses of human error , 1983, CACM.

[3]  Earl L. Wiener,et al.  Beyond the Sterile Cockpit , 1985 .

[4]  Mertens Hw Perception of runway image shape and approach angle magnitude by pilots in simulated night landing approaches , 1981 .

[5]  C E Billings,et al.  Human factors in aircraft incidents: results of a 7-year study. , 1984, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[6]  H. Foushee,et al.  Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet: Factors affecting group process and aircrew performance , 1984 .

[7]  Sandra H. Rouse,et al.  Analysis and classification of human error , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[8]  Conrad L. Kraft A Psychophysical Contribution to Air Safety: Simulator Studies of Visual Illusions in Night Visual Approaches , 1978 .

[9]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[10]  D. Krantz,et al.  The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning , 1983 .

[11]  David H. Krantz,et al.  The use of statistical heuristics in everyday reasoning , 1983 .

[12]  R. Hogarth,et al.  BEHAVIORAL DECISION THEORY: PROCESSES OF JUDGMENT AND CHOICE , 1981 .

[13]  C. E. Billings,et al.  Information transfer problems in the aviation system , 1981 .

[14]  W. T. Singleton,et al.  Techniques for determining the causes of error , 1972 .

[15]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. , 1978 .

[16]  Stanley N. Roscoe,et al.  Airborne Displays for Flight and Navigation , 1968 .

[17]  D. Norman Categorization of action slips. , 1981 .

[18]  J A Perrone,et al.  Visual slant misperception and the 'black-hole' landing situation. , 1984, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[19]  S R Ellis,et al.  The Effect of Perspective Geometry on Judged Direction in Spatial Information Instruments , 1986, Human factors.

[20]  John M. Hammer An intelligent flight-management aid for procedure execution , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[22]  D D Woods,et al.  Paradigms for intelligent decision support , 1986 .

[23]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Behavioral Decision Theory , 1977 .

[24]  Steven L. Johnson,et al.  What Moves, the Airplane or the World? , 1972, Human factors.